By 2353NM

It seems Australia’s success so far in reducing the impacts of COVID-19 has a lot to do with the co-ordinated efforts of the various state governments and the federal government. Comparisons to other countries with similar qualities of life demonstrate Australians are experiencing less coronavirus-related illness and death. Certainly, the standard of our health care system and dispersed population helps, but ‘stay at home’ restrictions are frustrating and annoying. However just like in the Spanish Flu pandemic at the end of World War 1, the restrictions seem to be effective. The Spanish Flu pandemic’s second and third wave also demonstrate what may happen if the restrictions are lifted too early.

Writing in the Nine Media titles, Political Editor Chris Uhlmann asks the question If a grandparent chooses a loving embrace that may kill them who are we to stop them? His argument is effectively that the longer the personal restrictions continue, the worse the world’s economy will be, which will lead to domestic violence, suicide, civil wars, totalitarian rulers and so on. Uhlmann suggests we allow freedom of movement so grandparents can hug their grandchildren (just to pull on a few heartstrings!). All well and good on the surface except that there is a time lag between the infection and the display of symptoms and in that time the grandparent has interacted with the bus driver, the supermarket checkout operator, the financial planner, friends and relations as well as the people in the coffee shop around the corner. While the grandparents statistically have a greater chance of needing hospitalisation, who’s to know if the financial planner is recovering from a major operation and has little or no immunity? Is a ‘normal’ economy worth one life (or over 50,000 and climbing while their President plays political games in the case of the USA)?

Uhlmann’s response, like the initial responses of UK PM Johnson and US President Trump, to the criticism above would likely be that should ‘normal life’ continue, only the weak should be concerned and ‘herd immunity’ will eventually reduce the virus to insignificance. Apart from there being no proof that long term ‘herd immunity’ to COVID 19 is a ‘thing’, during April Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz wrote an article in The Guardian entitled ‘Herd Immunity is a fatal strategy we should avoid at all costs’. While Uhlmann is an experienced reporter, according to The Guardian,

Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz is an epidemiologist working in chronic disease in Sydney’s west, with a particular focus on the social determinants that control our health.

Our money should be on the epidemiologist over the reporter to actually have an idea on a public health issue and its effects.

Looking at COVID-19, German Chancellor Angela Merkel (who happens to have earned a doctorate in quantum chemistry) explains the risk in this video:

Guy Rundle, writing in Crikey (paywalled) suggests:

The position supporting lockdown is this (it is necessary to repeat it, since none of it appears in right-wing articles): COVID-19 appears to have a basic reproduction rate (R0) of around two, which means that anyone with it will infect two other people under normal conditions.

That is a basic exponential rate, doubling for every step of infection spread. If that period is, say, a day, then the population of Australia could be infected from a single case in a 25-day period.

The object of lockdown and social distancing is to detach the effective reproduction rate (RE) from R0, and push RE below one, at which point the virus will eventually die out under maintained conditions (so far as I understand it).

So what is more important — health or the economy? Is it really s/he who dies with the most economic power wins here? Most of us, and hopefully even Uhlmann despite his seeming lack of concern for older members of our society, would have some concern for older friends and relatives, hoping they stay safe and well in the current environment. Concern for others demonstrates to a large extent the fallacy of Uhlmann’s argument as well as demonstrating the ultimate fallacy in a couple of conservative dictums – greed is good (a growing economy trumps all other considerations) and that human suffering is acceptable (provided it is not to those ‘near and dear’).

Just as the ALP’s Rudd and Swan did in the Global Financial Crisis, Morrison and Frydenberg have crafted a package designed to generate economic activity in the community. Despite Morrison’s initial claim that things would ‘snap back’ on the other side of the COVID-19 health pandemic, Morrison’s statements have been referencing small steps rather than a ‘big bang’ recently. It’s also worth noting that the Morrison/Frydenberg stimulus packages are far greater that the Rudd/Swan packages last decade, even allowing for inflation.

There are three issues here. First, the Coalition has been running a ‘better economic manager’ argument for the past decade, calling out the debt that Rudd and Swan incurred to create their stimulus package. The current pandemic demonstrates that the Rudd/Swan approach was in fact correct and given similar circumstances, the Coalition government not only copies the ALP but ‘supersizes’ it. In both cases, those that had been vilified for years for being on any of the government’s support payments were finally supported properly. The current stimulus measures demonstrate that there should be considerably more emphasis placed on the people in our society than big business profits in the years to come.

Second, we now have the opportunity to press the ‘Reset’ button on the way our country has operated since the 1980s. The 1980’s ‘greed is good’ mantra should be tossed in the bin to rot with the shag pile carpet, white shoes and the 6-hour business lunch. We also need to acknowledge that former ALP PM Hawke’s ‘consensus’ model of government is still relevant and effective as demonstrated by Morrison’s ‘national cabinet’.

Last – it may be well and good that there is a concerted effort to ensure a return to economic independence, a race to fast-track a drug to cure COVID-19 as well as vaccine to prevent infection in the first place – but really the effort is wasted if there is no place on earth that has an environment that supports human life in 30 years’ time. Surely the environment and support for renewable energy over fossil fuel is more important than the return of record ASX Indices, ludicrously high executive salaries and larger dividends through going back to the same old ‘rape and pillage’ mentality.

What do you think?

By 2353NM

Have you ever noticed there are some ‘special people’ in our society that are always hustling to gain a sniff of an advantage? With the current restrictions on life as we (used to) know it accepted by the majority of Australians in an effort to prevent a far worse tragedy, our hustlers seem to be lining up to demonstrate their complete lack of regard for the rest of us.

We have the tone deaf as evidenced by Gerry Harvey of Harvey Norman fame who spoke to 60 Minutes on Channel 9 late in March

“There’s pretty much nothing to get scared of. It’s not the Spanish Flu that killed 15 million people just after the First World War … I’m 80, I should be really scared. Guess what? I’m not really scared.”

Mr Harvey was pleased to note revenue across his national chain of electronics stores up sharply amid huge consumer demand in recent weeks.

“You know, this is an opportunity,” he said.

“Our sales are up in Harvey Norman in Australia by nine per cent on last year. Our sales in freezers are up 300 per cent. And what about air purifiers? Up 100 per cent.”

We have the outright dangerous as evidenced by ‘reality’ television show co-host and chef Pete Evans who has been on the record for some time as claiming a paleo diet is the answer to a multitude of health issues, sunscreen is poisonous and that vaccinations are ineffective and extremely hazardous to health. Doctors (who do have a clue about health) have been on the record warning Evans to stick to what he is supposed have a clue about — how to cook. Evans has bobbed up again promoting a device that flashes ‘biolights’ as a coronavirus cure. There is no medical evidence behind this device to support Evans’ claim and from the sound of this report, even less chance of a link between the device and a cure for Coronavirus being demonstrated. If that’s not sufficient reason to walk away as quickly as possible, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is investigating the claims made about the $15,000 device. [Edit update: Evans has since been fined $25,000 by the TGA]

Then we have the opportunists such as some large businesses.

Frequently at General Practitioner’s Surgeries around Australia, there is a small room staffed by one of the large corporate pathology groups. Unsurprisingly, the pathology operator pays rent for the room and probably contributes to the surgery’s utilities costs.

So in the middle of a pandemic when people are being told to stay home, use telehealth options (which now have Medicare numbers to encourage a change in behaviour) and generally avoid situations where there are crowds of people, pathology groups aren’t getting as much business through their integrated surgery locations. So the large corporate pathology groups, with multi-million dollar turnovers and considerable government (Medicare) funding are turning the screws on the general practitioners (generally running a small business) that host the pathology offices demanding a 50% reduction on rental payments while retaining the same floorspace.

We can’t move past opportunists without referring to Qantas’ CEO Alan Joyce. Joyce has demanded a $4.2 Billion loan from the Australian Government if the Government decides to assist Virgin Australia with a $1.4 Billion loan to survive the Coronavirus economic downturn. Joyce claims he needs the money to ‘level the playing field’, but the real reason is probably included in this quote from the Sydney Morning Herald

Last week, Qantas raised $1 billion in fresh debt from the market in a loan secured against aircraft it owns to help it through the crisis. The company has $3.5 billion in other assets it can use to raise more cash.

Qantas boss Alan Joyce has been lobbying against government support for Virgin, saying last week that government should not help companies that “have been badly managed for 10 years” and that helping Virgin and not Qantas would be “completely unfair” on his airline.

Joyce also thought it was ‘fair’ to unilaterally ground Qantas domestic and international flights in late October 2011 without notice during an industrial dispute, leaving his customers stranded all over the world. Joyce also didn’t bother informing the government of the day so they could broker a resolution or alternative arrangements for those stranded by Joyce’s actions.

Thankfully, not all the hustlers are residents in Australia.

JK Rowling writes well. So well in fact she wrote the Harry Potter books and due to her skill, the royalties from Harry Potter means she probably never has to worry about how to pay for the best medical treatment (or anything else for that matter). According to reports, Rowling advocates a breathing technique claimed to ‘cure’ Coronavirus. The technique involves ‘controlled coughing’ which according to the experts is a real treatment for some respiratory diseases — Coronavirus isn’t one of them. In fact the coughing could spread Coronavirus to others that are close by. Maybe Rowling should keep to what she’s good at, like Evans.

The original response to the Coronavirus by the UK Government was that all their citizens were reasonable and responsible people, so reminders of the correct hygiene and distancing techniques (or ‘nudges to do the right thing’) would minimise the adverse health effects until a herd immunity had developed.

A month later ‘nudging people to do the right thing’ demonstrably worked so well the UK’s Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was reported to be taking short walks after a period of isolation in a ICU bed due to Coronavirus and sadly thousands have died.

At least Rowling and the UK Government weren’t deliberately obstructionist. Rather than miss some of the detail in the USA’s failure to respond appropriately to the threat of Coronavirus, you too can gain a small understanding of the complete and utter failure of President Trump and his hand-picked (and sometimes related) henchmen to understand the risk and protect his citizens by reading this article in The New Yorker.

Nurses having no option other than garbage bags for Personal Protective Equipment in the world’s richest country is a damning indictment, but is not as bad as Viktor Orban, the President of Hungary who has invoked considerable emergency powers to combat Coronavirus. The ‘emergency powers’ have no end date and some of them have nothing to do with the management of the Coronavirus pandemic. Some of the powers instituted by Orban are similar to those instituted by Morrison. At least Morrison can’t change the law or Constitution by decree.

The ‘old normal’ has gone forever. Hopefully in the ‘new normal’, whatever that is, those that practice the behaviours discussed above are given the short shrift they deserve.

What do you think?

By Candy Lawrence

Australian Progressives is a political party which achieved registration in February 2015. The party was originally conceived in late 2013 by a group of young progressive thinkers. The most influential was Vinay Orekondy, then a law student, who would become the most persistent driving force behind the party’s direction and the inaugural President upon registration.

Disillusionment with the two-party system and with the behaviour of politicians was pervasive in society, and the original think tank had observed that disengagement from politics was growing amongst the very people whom politics was meant to serve. The growth of protest movements such as March in March suggested that the time was fast approaching for a major change in Australian politics. The notion of seeking happiness and fulfilment for the Australian people, as a political rather than a personal goal, was derided by those in power as soft thinking; profit and economic growth had become a Holy Grail. The attitude of the major parties to the most disadvantaged in society and to the health of the planet were no more diverse than Coke and Pepsi, while the Greens had polarised rather than united the community. Meanwhile, our representatives continued to behave like disruptive schoolboys on the floor of the Houses of Parliament, with cheap point-scoring and abusive language having long been the norm.

In response to this, over time a radical set of six guiding principles was established for the party: ethics, empathy, equality, evidence, engagement, and empowerment. The party would not seek to align itself with a left, right, or centrist position; rather, it would take a logical position and seek well-referenced information and the best, most ethical solutions to Australia’s problems.

‘Ethics’ was the crucial principle which would differentiate this party from all others. Ethical behaviour in politics seemed on the verge of extinction; were these people, abusing each other, backstabbing within their own ranks, lying, breaking their own rules – were they really worthy of the people’s respect? They most certainly were not getting it. Public cynicism about politics was rife. Before anything else could be achieved, the issues around member conduct needed to be addressed. To this end, the Progressives created a Code of Ethics which enshrined respectful, ethical behaviour at every level, from online in-house interactions to engagement with members of other parties. The Code is taken seriously and members who breach it, regardless of their position, are subject to a formal disciplinary process which has on a number of occasions ended in expulsion of senior members. The process is time consuming and has held the party back from quick progression into the public eye, but this is deemed the necessary cost of creating a completely new standard of conduct for politicians.

‘Empathy’ was also a new concept in political circles. The treatment of asylum seekers in particular had made many people ashamed to be Australian, with the treatment of our own Indigenous peoples not far behind. Neither major party had had the gumption to admit that there, but for a sheer accident of birth, go all of us. Again, compassion for others was looked on by those in power as ‘soft’ rather than humane thinking. The Progressives take a strong stand against treating human beings as political pawns.

‘Equality’, again, was a sore point in the community. The middle class was in danger of disappearing entirely as the ‘haves’ increased their wealth and advantage, while the ‘have nots’ were portrayed as morally bankrupt and unworthy of assistance to justify reducing their access to financial security and medical support. Divide and conquer was the new order. The Progressives are working towards uniting the community and ensuring that all people are treated equitably and respectfully, regardless of ability, sexuality/gender, race or financial demographic.

‘Evidence’ referenced the growing anti-science movement spawned by the internet and the tendency to justify policy based on, or playing on, personal biases in order to seek re-election above all things. The policies of the Progressives are groundbreaking, in that they are fully academically referenced; the policies, with references, are freely available for public perusal.

‘Engagement’ expressed the need to give politics back to the people, who have often felt that they are suffering under edicts imposed without reference to those they affect. This, again, is an ambitious goal amongst people who are time-poor and financially pressured. Breaking into this hamster-wheel mentality and drawing Australians back into the political process as active members of the party is a slow but vital process.

‘Empowerment’ of communities to take control of their own future is another time consuming and challenging process. The dismantling of a system where elected local representatives are pressured to vote with the party rather than in the interests of their own constituents is an ambitious goal, but one the Progressives believe is the only way forward. Creating a belief that the average Australian can pick up their own power and have a say that matters, beyond casting their vote, will take time and effort.

Australian Progressives is a growing party with ambitious but worthy goals which aim to redefine politics for the good of all Australians. Currently the party is working to achieve state registration in the ACT, NSW, Victoria and Queensland in the near future.

By Ad astra

As COVID-19 spreads relentlessly throughout the world, bringing with it the most devastating death toll that anyone alive can remember, people the world over are asking: How will it all end?

With confirmed cases worldwide numbering almost 2.5 million, and deaths over 170,000 and rising, with the economic consequences biting savagely, and the prospect of this catastrophe lasting many months if not years, the end is uncertain. Whatever it might be, it is terrifying even for the most sanguine. The only statistic of comfort is that 646,000 have recovered.

At times of uncertainty there have been precedents from which lessons might be learned. I invite you to read an instructive article dated March 23, 2020 from The Atlantic: What the Great Plague of Athens Can Teach Us Now which carries the subtitle: Disease changed the course of the war, and shaped the peace that came afterward, planting the seeds that would destroy Athenian democracy, by Katherine Kelaidis, Resident Scholar at the National Hellenic Museum in Chicago.

For those of you who might find it tedious to read through this rather long article, I offer you some abstracts that might entice you.

It begins:

This is not the right time for a pandemic. Not that there is a right time for a pandemic, but some times are definitely the wrong one. And no time is worse than when a nation is already in crisis, when trust in its leaders and itself is already low, and at a time when international relations are strained and internal strife widespread. Basically, if the social and moral fibre of a society is already being tested, the widespread fear of death at the hands of an invisible killer makes everything exponentially worse. Fortunately, history offers us a number of examples of when a plague arrived at the wrong time.

And none of these examples is better than the Great Plague of Athens. This deadly epidemic swept through the city in 430 B.C., the second year of the Peloponnesian War, claiming perhaps 100,000 lives and revealing in stark contrast the fissures and fractures in Athenian life and politics. The disease, largely believed by modern scholars to have been either typhus or typhoid, even killed the great Athenian general and statesman Pericles, his wife, and their sons, Paralus and Xanthippus. It was a disaster of epic proportions that altered not only the Peloponnesian War, but the whole of Greek, and consequently world, history. While the war would not end for nearly 26 years after the first wave of sickness, there is little doubt that the Great Plague changed the course of the war (being at least in part responsible for Athens’s defeat) and significantly shaped the peace that came afterward, planting the seeds that would weaken and then destroy Athenian democracy.

Already you will be sensing the parallels between the Great Plague of Athens and the current Global Plague of COVID-19. Here is some more from the article:

The best ancient account of the Great Plague, as for all of the Peloponnesian War, can be found in Thucydides’s History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides was an Athenian general exiled from Athens after being blamed for a disastrous defeat. In exile, he was able to travel freely in a way few could at the time, and so provides a unique firsthand account of this tumultuous period. He also fell victim to the Plague, though managed to survive, making his narration of the disease’s symptoms and sensations not only reliable, but quite visceral. Thucydides has been called the “father of political realism,” and his assessment of the Plague and its consequences bears out the honour. As few others have before or since, Thucydides understood the ways in which fear and self-interest, when they are submitted to, guide individual motives, and consequently the fate of nations.

Thus, in his account of the Great Plague, Thucydides looks frankly at the practical and moral weaknesses that the disease was able to exploit. He sharply notes how crowding in Athens, along with inadequate housing and sanitation, helped the disease spread more quickly and added to the number of casualties. He is aware that a lack of attention to important public health and safety measures allowed the Plague to take root and made its effects much worse than they would have otherwise been. A stark lesson for us all.

But Thucydides is not concerned just with the ways in which poor urban planning caused the deaths of thousands of his countrymen. He is as much a moral critic as a political one. In his narration of the Plague’s devastation, he takes careful tally of instances of selflessness and courage, and those of selfishness and cowardice. It is clear that, for Thucydides at least, the death and suffering of a great epidemic (just like war) test the moral health of individuals and of societies. And a people who are not morally strong, when they become afraid, quickly slip into lawlessness and sacrilege: “For the violence of the calamity was such that men, not knowing where to turn, grew reckless of all law, human and divine.” What is also clear is that Thucydides does not think this collapse into immorality is simply a result of the Plague; rather, “Men who had hitherto concealed what they took pleasure in, now grew bolder.” To paraphrase Michelle Obama, ”Pandemics don’t make your character; they reveal your character.”

This is the danger for us all, here and now. As it was for Athens, so could it be for us. And the consequences could not be greater.

Here’s where you can access the whole article.

I’ll leave it to you to respond individually to this terrifying tale.

By Graham Nowland

The COVID-19 WA case at Perth Airport reported yesterday potentially has deep implications. Had it not been for the rapid finger-prick blood test and other mass screening measures, announced as expanded by Rio Tinto yesterday, this FIFO worker would have boarded the plane. After flying up to the Pilbara he might have infected at least some of his co-workers at the massive iron ore operations there.

It is worth briefly revisiting the news item. The virtually immediate results from blanket finger-prick blood tests, of all returning shift workers, revealed eight had suspicious anti-bodies. The eight were then tested again for the virus itself. This revealed one had COVID-19.

The employee had been to Bali, recounted Premier Mark McGowan, in a now familiar tone of slight exasperation. Yes, he had completed the compulsory 14 days isolation. Yes, he was apparently clear. Yes he was headed back to work.

Now this is an asymptomatic case though the word was never mentioned. Some reporters tried to form focusing questions. The premier’s attack on the worker’s irresponsibility in flying off to Bali in the middle of a pandemic seemed to distract them.

He also brushed off questions about Rio’s blood test for antibodies, used on some 1200 employees by then. He noted that ‘our test’ for the virus was the one that actually identified this COVID-19 case.

There seems to be a political avoidance of the asymptomatic case issue in spite of mounting concerns globally. Also in spite of Annika Blau’s well researched article on 4^th April on the ABC Perth News website. The World Health Organisation has claimed such cases are rare and the Federal Health Department advice to clinicians repeats this. The reporter presented some of the growing evidence which suggest WHO, and our national government, might be wrong.

Over the last six or so weeks some reliable sources have affirmed the existence of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. Now this week Reuters reported that medical officers on the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt had so far tested 94% of its crew. More than half of 600 sailors who tested positive showed no symptoms. The implication is that young, healthy-looking sailors on this active warship were, until identified in mass tests, potentially stealth transmitters.

Also less than a week ago the venerable and conservative medical journal, Lancet in Britain, wrote:

‘There is a powerful case in support of mass testing of both symptomatic and asymptomatic HCWs (Health Care workers) to reduce the risk of nosocomial (originating in a hospital ) transmission.’

This is because many fully protected front line health care workers in Britain are self-isolating unnecessarily when, for example, they suspect a breakdown in protection. Lancet argues strongly that mass testing will reveal any asymptomatic cases and allow the others to return to the front line.

Casting around Britain and the world for evidence, the article states: ‘The number of asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 is significant.’ The writer hedges a lot which spoils the effect but does commit when evidence is overwhelming and solid.

The best example centres on another ship. Vessels on long ocean voyages seem to generate conditions that intensely cultivate the virus while also facilitating the gathering of hard evidence about what happens. This kind of account seems to be as good as laboratory testing as far as Lancet is concerned. The one chosen rendered a similar result to the American aircraft carrier.

‘In a study of COVID-19 symptomatic and asymptomatic infection on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, 328 of the 634 positive cases (51·7%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing’ Lancet states unequivocally.’

Both news items appeared not long before Rio Tinto flushed out the asymptomatic case at Perth airport. Yet no one at Premier McGowan’s press conference uttered the word ‘asymptomatic’ in either a statement or a question.

Also no one suggested Rio Tinto’s mass testing initiative might be applied more widely, although one reporter tried hard to get Mark McGowan into that target area. He diverted her with the point that ‘our tests’ (meaning the government’s viral ones) were better than Rio Tinto’s blood test for antibodies. Yet Rio’s rapid mass blood testing rung the alarm and helped stop a COVID infected worker boarding the plane north.

Whatever the governments do and say they have to be careful. But in not doing any mass testing, perhaps using both types of test in combination and looking for asymptomatic cases, they might be flying half-blind. Rio’s screening success, the USS Theodore Roosevelt case, the Diamond Princess, even conservative British doctors; all now suggest that refined mass testing wherever possible might be important. It might be the only way to get deeper and more authentic information about exactly how this complex, subtle and devastating disease transmits.

By 2353NM

Up until recently, the last worldwide pandemic was the Spanish Flu at the end of the First World War. According to the National Museum of Australia, 50 million people died across the world. Australia introduced a quarantine in October 1918 however around 40% of our population were struck down by the disease and 15,000 Australians died.

Once we as a nation were recovering from the Spanish Flu, the prices for our exports fell in the lead up to the ‘great depression’ of the early 1930’s, caused by a share market crash on the New York Stock Exchange in 1929. Again, according to the National Museum of Australia the Australian economy crashed and by 1932, 32% of the population was unemployed. The unemployment rate was still 11% at the beginning of World War 2 in 1939.

Prime Minister John Curtin set up a Department of Post War Construction in December 1942. Don’t forget that in 1942 and 1943, Japanese bombs were still falling on Australia and the Allies didn’t land in France until mid 1944. Arguably, Curtin’s actions set Australia up for the growth experienced in the second half of the 20th century.

Essentially, the Australian economy only recovered from the hit of the Spanish Flu and the Great Depression due to the economic activity of and subsequent to World War 2. The 1930’s also tell us the social and economic consequences around having a large number of unemployed. By contrast this century, when required, governments have stepped in to prime the economic pump, attempting to reduce the consequences of a long-term economic slowdown.

Conservatives can no longer argue that the Rudd/Swan reaction to the Global Financial Crisis earlier this century was too much, completely irresponsible or inappropriate as Prime Minister Morrison’s recent stimuli announcements to attempt to manage the economic fallout from the Coronavirus pandemic of 2020 has by far exceeded the Rudd/Swan stimulus packages (with possibly more to come). The value of an economic stimulus can be higher this century because Australia no longer relies on the ‘gold standard’, The potential for a large ‘government debt’ really isn’t the worst possible outcome and there will be structural flaws with Morrison’s package of stimuli, just as there were with Rudd’s.

Morrison claims that the package of economic measures he has announced to date are designed to be quickly withdrawn when the economy ‘snaps back’, rather than the ongoing debt added to the economy by Rudd and Swan. But how realistic is Morrison’s claim?

So far in 2020, Australian Governments at all levels have introduced quarantine measures that have severely restricted the ability of the population to move around and socially interact. While there is probably more science to it this time around, effectively it is the same principle as the quarantine imposed during the Spanish Flu pandemic. This has significantly and detrimentally affected economic activity around the country.

Morrison’s economic stimulus package includes the doubling of the unemployment benefit, gifting of money to those who receive a government benefit, quasi-nationalisation of private hospitals, paying the wages of those that don’t have meaningful work (through their existing employer) plus a number of grants, ‘free’ loans and other measures to a number of businesses. It reflects the lessons of the recovery after the Great Depression (without the need for the world to go to war again).

Morrison (like other governments around the world) has given the economy a sugar hit. And like all sugar hits, it’s much easier to keep getting them than wean yourself off them. Soft drink and confectionary manufacturers have been relying on this fact for centuries. There has been considerable pressure on this and previous governments to increase the level of the unemployment benefit to a value that people can actually support themselves with dignity while looking for work and it could be argued that the ‘temporary’ doubling of the benefit is a tacit acknowledgement that the benefit is far too low.

In addition, government agencies such as Centrelink are frantically employing people to cope with demands for actual service and action driven by people who have never had to enter the byzantine world where clients are presumed to be rorting the system until they prove otherwise. There is also a frantic effort by government agencies and companies to bring call centres up to an appropriate staffing level to match the level of demand. Health services are also being frantically rejigged to ensure that they can provide the services demanded of them through the current pandemic.

Australia has an opportunity here. Say, for example, we did fund government benefits so that those reliant on them could live with decency. Health services for those that needed support could get it without waiting years to go on the ‘official’ waiting list and those that needed a hand who use programs such as the NDIS received support in appropriate timeframes with appropriate funding. Most of the staff at government agencies such as NDIS and Centrelink would love to help people to the extent that they need, rather than impose processes and procedures that deliberately demoralise and victimise those that need support.

It would also be appropriate to ensure that independent state funded media, such as the ABC and SBS were funded sufficiently to support their ‘essential’ purpose of providing information 24/7 for 365 days a year (because the next adverse event somewhere in Australia is just around the corner). No government is going to find all of the content of an independent media outlet to be sympathetic to their particular ideology.

Lenore Taylor, the Editor of The Guardian recently wrote an article that suggested that ‘Australia can be a much better, fairer place after the coronavirus if we are prepared to fight for it’. The ABC’s Laura Tingle has made similar comments Even the Sydney Morning Herald’s editorial on 3 April 2020 discussed why a wind back from the ‘sugar hit’ should be gradual, suggesting that raising taxes is probably a better option than reducing welfare.

We are all heading to a new world and at this point we can’t explain how it works. If we all work together to create understanding and equality rather than revert to the ‘greed is good’ mantra that served us badly from the 1980’s to the 2010’s — it will be a far more equitable and pleasant place for all of us.

What do you think?